Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elysian Shadows

Elysian Shadows

Elysian Shadows (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article is currently built entirely of primary sources, and a video game reliable sources search for sources that might confer notability upon the topic (or its subtopics such as "Adventures in Video Game Development") reveal only two press releasey blurbs [1] and a whole lot of unedited press releases [2]. As such, the article topic fails the notability guidelines for want of significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) czar ♔ 15:07, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom. The article contains a single third party source that is recognised as reliable, but the subject of that reference isn't the game itself, its the YouTube channel that the developers are posting their progress on. The layout and amount of content are great, the problem is the sources. As regards what to do with the article, it's hard to say send it for incubation, because the content first appeared on this user's sandbox but the content was copied from there and created as an article by a separate user, so userfying the page will need a bit of digging to find out who to send it back to. - X201 (talk) 15:27, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) X201 (talk) 15:30, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

• Weak delete It's got potential, but it really needs to tone it down. In its current form, it should be deleted under the "fundamental rewrite" clause. --McDoobAU93 16:03, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
• Delete - Maybe someday, but right now it's WP:TOOSOON. There's little to no third party sources covering it on detail, so it fails the GNG. Also, it's written like more of a "developer's diary" or "fan's documentation" than an encyclopedia article, so it should really just be started from scratch if/when it meets the GNG someday. Sergecross73 msg me 16:12, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails WP:N and WP:V. Many, many sources, but they're all primary or unreliable third-party. The single reliable third-party reference is a Destructoid blog with no actual content for us to use. Woodroar (talk) 17:44, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
• Hold On. First of all, I would like to say that I am the original author of the article. This is a reputable game that has been featured on may gaming sites. Apparently I made a mistake citing their official site and interviews a few too many times, but the content may be found on plenty of other gaming sites, including press release converage on notable sites such as GamaSutra. Also, I don't think any of your assessments are quite fair, as much of the content of this article may be seen directly from their YouTube videos. This should not be considered a "primary source," as the videos themselves demonstrate the game, and a portion of this page is dedicated to those videos and the progress the team has demonstrated. They are not a primary source, they are literally the subject of the article... Wait on the deletion and I will add more reputable sources to appease you guys.

Edit: I would also object to this on the grounds of obfuscation and a fundamental philosophical disagreement here. First of all, who is a better source to cite for information regarding a game than the developers themselves? Than video footage literally demonstrating and showing EXACTLY what the article depicts first-hand? Your evangelical quest to only cite other sources will only result in adding an additional layer of bias to the article and separate it even further from the sources, which are the development team and their videos. The article is written in such a manner that every paragraph is verifiable via the AiGD series. So what you're saying is the only "reputable" sources about a game are not the developers themselves, not the gameplay footage, and not the sources that are actually unbiased and most reputable, but opinionated articles from the gaming press and their editors reporting on a source that could have been cited here directly? That's not unbiased encyclopediac information. I created an article about a GAME referencing the ACTUAL GAME, not a hodge-podge of various biased third party sources. Pete Cartier this user's sandbox (talk) 13:25, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

They are a primary source, "Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved.". There's nothing wrong with YouTube as a primary source to prove that Charlie Sheen actually said his latest rant, but it needs third party sources to support it as being noteworthy and for it to be interpreted by unconnected parties. As the creators they have an inherent bias to their product, they are also just one single source of information, should we take their word for it or multiple third party sources each with their own viewpoint on it? - X201 (talk) 18:51, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

If you want to start improving the article and adding sources, by all means do so. If the article transforms into something that fits notability and verifiability and has more third-party sourcing, you'll see people !vote to keep it or even change !votes; I'd be willing to change mine if the content improves, hence my "weak delete" !vote. --McDoobAU93 19:21, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, I'm working on it. Pete Cartier this user's sandbox (talk) 14:48, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

• Any Better? I added non-primary sources to at least every major section of the article, from sites like indiegamingmagazine.com, retrogamingmagazine.com, seganerds.com, segabits.com, and rpgwatch.com. The first two are very reputable sources, and SegaNerds and SegaBits are very reputable, highly-esteemed sources on Sega-specific games and homebrew, which Elysian Shadows is classified as. Let me know your feedback, and thank you for working with me. Edit: oops, cited a blogspot. Apologies. Removing. Pete Cartier this user's sandbox (talk) 13:25, 30 May 2014 (UTC)